[update] I'm totally okay with this being downvoted, but I'd like the input as to why, if I'm somehow wrong, then tell me ? :)
There's actual legal debate about this. This articles summarizes that debate. [1]
> This article considers three answers to the question whether electricity access should be a universal human right. A first position is that there is no human right to electricity but perhaps contractual rights related to various societies. A second position is that electricity is a derived human right, a right based on other rights, grounded on rights such as the right to adequate housing. A third position is that there is a universal human right to electricity. It is argued that the second position is the strongest since it supports the idea that humans often need access to electricity but avoids the stronger claim that all humans must have this access. The latter claim faces the challenge that rights language should focus on the needs of humans and not be extended too far to include everything that could be beneficial for humans. Such an extension might diminish the attention on the actual aim of human rights: That all humans should have a good enough life.
I agree with those assertions and it's why I think that neither electricity nor the internet are universal human rights.
Contrary to such universal human rights as the right to a family, liberty, recognition as a person before the law,... which should be read as first principles that ought to be applied in human interactions, rather then claims to specific commodities. [2]
That doesn't mean those things aren't important. Access to the Internet has gained in importance. Instead, human rights are a moral framework that ought to underpin the governance of that access. And that's what makes all the difference.
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2019.1... [2] https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Like, here in DK, I have a RIGHT to electricity, not for free, but no matter where I live geographically in this country, I have a right to be able to buy a home, and a right to a electricity subscription, the electrics company cannot just say "nah, we don't wish you as a customer" unless I really do something wrong.
For E-Mail addresses, it's not so, if nobody wants to provide me with one, then that's just too bad. Electricity is somewhat easier then email, because "the power I got yesterday" has no connection to the power I get today.. We also have a right to phone numbers, meaning that if I switch to a new provider, my phone number follows to my new subscription with no additional fee.
But if I switch e-mail provider from gmail to proton, I've no right to have my email address, no less the actual inbox transferred to my new provider.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/audio/2016/aug/04/int...
Yet I don't like private companies storing it...
And it's too complicated to manage on my own. Damn.
I have some right to the domain on which I host my mail, but I don't have a right to a fixed static IP, and I don't have a right to be able to make outgoing connections on port 25 (or any port, I guess?), and I also don't have a right to a bouncer, so in practice, I don't have a right to host my own mail, there's no law giving me the right to demand any of those things, it's up to me to be a combination of lucky and wealthy enough to make it happen.
Basically, I want to send a mail to you, your server is listening on those ports because you're a normal person, and didn't rediret port 80 to be your SNMP incoming.
So, I try to make a connection to your domain:25, my packets won't even leave my ISP, my outgoing connection is simply dropped.
Try it, are you lucky enough that you can ? If you speak a bit of SMTP you can send email from telnet like that.
At least some uniquely identified email address is better than hoping things like court documents with legal implications get paper mailed to some previously known physical address you may or may not still have any access or relationship with.
I also keep a local backup of my email so if the day ever comes I am ready.
But, for me, in the end, email must die.
* poor service, since there will be no competition and little to no incentives to improve it
* lack of privacy, since law enforcements and random officials will absolutely want to have full access (and sure, Google has access to my emails, but I can use Protonmail instead and trust them way more not to abuse this access than I would trust "DMV for email")
* even further centralisation of power - it would be much easier to apply pressure to people doing anything "anti-government" (I believe there are already examples of this with people being cut from all-encompassing WeChat in China, but I don't have references at hand)
There is also an argument against frivolous expansion of human rights with anything not absolutely necessary or too specific.
As it stands, internet access and services are incredibly centralized in the marketplace within just a handful of enormous companies.
In a functioning democracy, you'd be able to elect the right people to make sure service is maintained properly and not abused.